ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2019
On the Road to Regeneration: "Tools" and "Routes" Towards Efficient Cardiac Cell Therapy for Ischemic Cardiomyopathy.
Review in Current cardiology reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advances in the design, generation, and application of tissue-engineered myocardial equivalents.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Review
- Transthoracic ultrasound-guided percutaneous intramyocardial injection combined with ultrasound-targeted microbubble destruction-mediated angiogenin 1 gene therapy in canine myocardial infarction model.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2021Article
- On 3 legs shall we stand: Combined innovation for treatment of ischemic cardiomyopathy.JTCVS open · 2021Article
- Editorial: Fibrosis and Inflammation in Tissue Pathophysiology.Frontiers in physiology · 2021Article
- Three-dimensional scaffold-free microtissues engineered for cardiac repair.Journal of materials chemistry. B · 2020Review
- Cells, Materials, and Fabrication Processes for Cardiac Tissue Engineering.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewCardiac regenerative medicine is a field bridging together biotechnology and surgical science. In this review, we present the explored surgical roads to cell delivery and the known effects of each delivery method on cell therapy efficiency. We also list the more recent clinical trials, exploring the safety and efficacy of delivery routes used for cardiac cell therapy approaches. RECENT
findingsThere is no consensus in defining which way is the most suitable for the delivery of the different therapeutic cell types to the damaged heart tissue. In addition, it emerged that the "delivery issue" has not been systematically addressed in each clinical trial and for each and every cell type capable of cardiac repair. Cardiac damage occurring after an ischemic insult triggers a cascade of cellular events, eventually leading to heart failure through fibrosis and maladaptive remodelling. None of the pharmacological or medical interventions approved so far can rescue or reverse this phenomenon, and cardiovascular diseases are still the leading cause of death in the western world. Therefore, for nearly 20 years, regenerative medicine approaches have focused on cell therapy as a promising road to pursue, with numerous preclinical and clinical testing of cell-based therapies being studied and developed. Nonetheless, consistent clinical results are still missing to reach consensus on the most effective strategy for ischemic cardiomyopathy, based on patient selection, diagnosis and stage of the disease, therapeutic cell type, and delivery route.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.